MINETTE BAPTISTA, ET Al, 
Petitioners, v. ROSARIO Facts: Petitioner filed a complaint against ETPI with
VILLANUEVA, ET Al, Respondents.
THIRD DIVISION. G.R. No. 194709, July 31, 2013
MENDOZA, J.:
Facts:  In this case, RPNEU’s Constitution and By-Laws
expressly mandate that before a party is allowed to
seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition
that he should have availed of all the internal remedies
within the organization. Petitioners were found to have
violated the provisions of the union’s Constitution and
By-Laws when they filed petitions for impeachment
against their union officers and for audit before the
DOLE without first exhausting all internal remedies
available within their organization. Thus, petitioners
were expelled from the union.
Issue: Are the respondents, as union officers, are guilty
of ULP for violating paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 249
(now Art. 260) of the Labor Code?
Ruling: No. The primary concept of ULP is embodied in
Article 247 (Now 258) of the Labor Code. In essence,
ULP relates to the commission of acts that transgress
the workers’ right to organize. As specified in Articles
248 and 249 (now 259 and 260) of the Labor Code, the
prohibited acts must necessarily relate to the workers'
right to self-organization and to the observance of a
CBA. Absent the said vital elements, the acts
complained, although seemingly unjust, would not
constitute ULP.
Thus, petitioners’ expulsion from the union was not a
deliberate attempt to curtail or restrict their right to
organize, but was triggered by the commission of an
act, expressly sanctioned by the union’s Constitution
and By-Laws. For a charge of ULP against a labor
organization to prosper, the onus probandi rests upon
the party alleging it to prove or substantiate such
claims by the requisite quantum of evidence.
NELSON A. CULILI, Petitioner,  vs. EASTERN
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC. (ETPI), ET
AL. Respondents.
FIRST DIVISION. G.R. No. 165381, February 9, 2011
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
unfair labor practice for violating Article 248 (now 259)
(c) and (e) of the Labor Code. Culili asserted that his
functions were sourced out to labor-only contractors
and he was discriminated against when his co-
employees were treated differently when they were
each offered an additional motorcycle to induce them
to avail of the Special Retirement Program. ETPI denied
hiring outside contractors and averred that the
motorcycles were not given to his co-employees but
were purchased by them pursuant to their Collective
Bargaining Agreement, which allowed a retiring
employee to purchase the motorcycle he was assigned
during his employment.
Issue: Is ETPI guilty of ULP?
Ruling: No. The SC ruled that "unfair labor practice
refers to ‘acts that violate the workers' right to
organize.’ The prohibited acts are related to the
workers' right to self-organization and to the
observance of a CBA." Thus, an employer may only be
held liable for unfair labor practice if it can be shown
that his acts affect in whatever manner the right of his
employees to self-organize.
According to jurisprudence, "basic is the principle that
good faith is presumed and he who alleges bad faith
has the duty to prove the same." By imputing bad faith
to the actuations of ETPI, Culili has the burden of proof
to present substantial evidence to support the
allegation of unfair labor practice. Culili failed to
discharge this burden and his bare allegations deserve
no credit.
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION-
PTGWO, petitioners, 
vs. HON. JESUS G. BERSAMIRA and SAN MIGUEL
CORPORATION (SMC), respondents.
SECOND DIVISION. G.R. No. 87700, June 13, 1990
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
Facts: Respondent Court issued a Temporary
Restraining Order based on a verified Complaint for
Injunction and Damages by SMC to enjoin the Union,
among others, from representing and/or acting for and
in behalf of the employees of LIPERCON and/or D'RITE
for the purposes of collective bargaining, etc.
Petitioners' plea is that the Writ issued is in excess of
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion, a labor
dispute being involved. SMC defends the Writ on the
ground of absence of any employer-employee
relationship between it and the contractual workers
employed by the companies Lipercon Services, Inc.
(Lipercon) and D'Rite Service Enterprises (D'Rite).
Issue: Is respondent Court correctly assumed
jurisdiction over the present controversy and properly
issued the Writ of Preliminary Injunction? To the
resolution of that question, is the matter of whether
the case at bar involves, or is in connection with, or
relates to a labor dispute.
Ruling: No, respondent court is not correct, their being
labor dispute that exist, hence the case falls within the
exclusive and original jurisdiction of the labor arbiter.
The SC ruled that the existence of a labor dispute is not
negative by the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants
do not stand in the proximate relation of employer and
employee. While it is SMC’s submission that no
employer-employee relationship exists between itself,
on the one hand, and the contractual workers of
Lipercon and D'Rite on the other, a labor dispute can
nevertheless exist "regardless of whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relationship of
employer and employee" (Article 212 [1], Labor
Code, supra) provided the controversy concerns,
among others, the terms and conditions of
employment or a "change" or "arrangement" thereof.
That a labor dispute, as defined by the law, does exist
herein is evident. At bottom, what the Union seeks is to
regularize the status of the employees contracted by
Lipercon and D'Rite in effect, that they be absorbed
into the working unit of SanMig. This matter definitely
dwells on the working relationship between said
employees vis-a-vis SanMig.
As the case is indisputably linked with a labor dispute,
jurisdiction belongs to the labor tribunals. Hence, the
court has no jurisdiction.
STERLING PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. and V.
SAN PEDRO, petitioners,  unfair labor practice, wherein they charged the
vs. LORETA C. SOL and COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, respondents.
EN BANC. G.R. No. L-19187, February 28, 1963
LABRADOR, J.:
Facts: Respondent Loreta charged petitioners with
having committed an unfair labor practice act. She
alleged that a complaint was filed by her against the
firm which resulted in her dismissal, without just cause.
Petitioners claim that under the decision rendered by
Us in the case of Royal Interocean Lines, et al. vs. Court
of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-11745, Oct. 31,
1960, as respondent Sol was merely an employee and
was not connected with any labor union, the company
cannot be considered as having committed acts
constituting unfair labor practice as defined in the
Industrial Peace Act, Rep. Act 875.
Issue: Are petitioners guilty of unfair labor practice.
Ruling: No. The SC ruled that the term unfair labor
practice has been defined as any of those acts listed in
See. 4 R.A 875. Respondent Sol has never been found
to commit any of the acts mentioned in paragraph (a)
of Sec. 4. Respondent Sol was not connected with any
labor organization, nor has she ever attempted to join a
labor organization, or to assist, or contribute to a labor
organization. The company cannot, therefore, be
considered as having committed an unfair labor
practice. As respondent Sol was merely an employee
and was not connected with any labor union, the
company cannot be considered as having committed
acts constituting unfair labor practice as defined in the
Industrial Peace Act, Rep. Act 875.
AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, petitioner, vs.
HONORABLE JACOBO C. CLAVE, ET AL., respondents
1982 Jun 29 2nd Division G.R. No. L-51641
BARREDO, J.:
Facts: Petitioner entered into a contract with the
Marine Security Agency for the latter to guard and
protect the petitioner's vessel. It was stipulated in the
contract that its term was for one year. Subsequently,
the contract was terminated after it had run its term.
The Maritime Security Union, through private
respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner for
petitioner for they had refused to negotiate an
agreement with them and had discriminated against
them with regard to their tenure of employment by
dismissing them, for no other reason than their
membership with the union and union activities.

Issue: Is petitioner guilty of ULP?

Ruling: No. The SC ruled that In view of our finding that

there is no employer-employee relationship between
the petitioner and the members of the respondent
agency, it should necessarily follow that the petitioner
cannot be guilty of unfair labor practice as charged by
the private respondents. Under Republic Act 875,
Section 13, an unfair labor practice may be committed
only within the context of an employer-employee
relationship.